Guest
Hello Bodenseeknusperli
The "Aargauer Zeitung" cites the Keystone photo agency as the source for the photo ("© Photo: Keystone/Facebook").
"20 Minuten" also uses the picture. The source is given as: "Leserreporter/Arthu Baumann". It can be assumed that the photographer is Arthu Baumann and that he sent the photo to "20 Minuten" for publication.
You ask whether the "Aargauer Zeitung" used the photo without asking. No. As it obtained it from the Keystone photo agency, its use is certainly legally clear. However, the use here on the publicly accessible Migipedia page could be more problematic: schneebaer47 probably used the image without being asked; there is also no indication of the source. However, Frederica's link to the newspaper article is perfectly legal.
Best regards
Go-home service
Guest
...got it from FB
Guest
Hello schneebaer47
Many people believe that images, texts and videos are freely available for redistribution if they have been published on public pages on so-called social media such as Facebook. I am very skeptical that it is really that simple.
The Migipedia rules state the following:
"When you communicate on Migipedia, you accept the following rules of the game:
[...]
c. Only upload content for which you have all the necessary rights (in particular copyrights) for the intended use (e.g. only photos that you have taken yourself or upload with the consent of the photographer);
[...]
e. That we may delete the content communicated by you at any time and without giving reasons, in particular in the event of violations of these rules."
I'm curious to see what the Migipedia team will say.
Best regards
Go-home service
Guest
@all
If the community leaders have a problem with me, then they should tell me in person.
What some of you know-it-alls and double-moralists in here think of me was and is of no importance to me, wipe your own floor, there's enough dirt there ?
by the way, it's not your job to tell others here what you can and can't do.
@Bodenseeknusperli
Why are you asking me❓?
I only put the link, which is correct. ?
If you want to make a name for yourself, look up all the pictures and texts on Migipedia and you'll find that
© is violated! ?
I don't care but I ignore where the pictures or texts of the users come from, the main thing is that what I write comes from me and the pictures too. Otherwise there will be links!
Best regards
Frederica
Guest
...every word that is written here (incl. photos) must/should be put on the gold scale first, otherwise "some" will feel immediately attacked. Some of you dish it out and can't take it. But I should have to put up with everything from you or what ?
I would be happy if a community manager could tell me what is allowed in Migipedia regarding the use of other people's images or texts?
If I understand the law correctly, you are allowed to quote other people's pictures and texts in Migipedia as long as the source or the author is named?
Copyright law in Switzerland expressly provides for quotations (Art. 25 CopA). Quoting - for example by bloggers from other weblogs - does not require "permission to reuse" or any other authorization.
Copyright-protected content or works may be freely quoted in Switzerland in order to explain, illustrate or provide references to one's own statements. According to prevailing doctrine, quotations are possible for all categories of works, i.e. according to prevailing doctrine, image quotations can also be used and the right to quote is not limited exclusively to texts.
Legally compliant citation requires that there is a connection between the content and the quotations used. The scope of the quotation is determined by the purpose of the quotation and must always remain subordinate to your own content. Quotations must be recognizable as such and both the authorship and the source must be named. From a copyright point of view, however, it is not necessary to link authorship and source, but such a link is user-friendly for digital content, as it enables quick and easy access to the source.
Art. 25 Citations
1Publishedworks may be cited if the citation serves as an explanation, reference or illustration and the extent of the citation is justified by this purpose.
2The quotation as such and the source must be identified. If the authorship is referred to in the source, this must also be stated.
Source:
https://steigerlegal.ch/2013/01/09/urheberrecht-irrtum-zitat-creative-commons/
Author: January 9, 2013 - Attorney Martin Steiger
Guest
...how bitter, frustrated and dissatisfied are you with yourselves and your lives that you only pick on me all the time, the best thing is if everything is banned here, except the only positive ratings. No more photos are allowed here, no more negative reviews and criticizing is also a criminal offense. I think it's good that a certain radical user is no longer here, but what's going on here now shows what's going on. It has become a hypocritical tragedy, it's a pity that an "actually" good thing has been so messed up.
Wipe at your door, that's enough and I find double standards disgusting :(
if I'm deleted, I don't give a damn, I just find certain things to make me vomit
Guest
schneebaer47, can you prove that you were personally attacked here?
Otherwise, with all due respect, I would ask myself whether my reaction is proportionate.
I can't help but get the impression that it's not the case with you.
And if you don't care about others and you find it so awful here - why do you keep registering here?
Guest
Hello Bodenseeknusperli
The "Aargauer Zeitung" cites the Keystone photo agency as the source for the photo ("© Photo: Keystone/Facebook").
"20 Minuten" also uses the picture. The source is given as: "Leserreporter/Arthu Baumann". It can be assumed that the photographer is Arthu Baumann and that he sent the photo to "20 Minuten" for publication.
You ask whether the "Aargauer Zeitung" used the photo without asking. No. As it obtained it from the Keystone photo agency, its use is certainly legally clear. However, the use here on the publicly accessible Migipedia page could be more problematic: schneebaer47 probably used the image without being asked; there is also no indication of the source. However, Frederica's link to the newspaper article is perfectly legal.
Best regards
Go-home service
Guest
...got it from FB
Guest
Hello schneebaer47
Many people believe that images, texts and videos are freely available for redistribution if they have been published on public pages on so-called social media such as Facebook. I am very skeptical that it is really that simple.
The Migipedia rules state the following:
"When you communicate on Migipedia, you accept the following rules of the game:
[...]
c. Only upload content for which you have all the necessary rights (in particular copyrights) for the intended use (e.g. only photos that you have taken yourself or upload with the consent of the photographer);
[...]
e. That we may delete the content communicated by you at any time and without giving reasons, in particular in the event of violations of these rules."
I'm curious to see what the Migipedia team will say.
Best regards
Go-home service
Guest
@all
If the community leaders have a problem with me, then they should tell me in person.
What some of you know-it-alls and double-moralists in here think of me was and is of no importance to me, wipe your own floor, there's enough dirt there ?
by the way, it's not your job to tell others here what you can and can't do.
@Bodenseeknusperli
Why are you asking me❓?
I only put the link, which is correct. ?
If you want to make a name for yourself, look up all the pictures and texts on Migipedia and you'll find that
© is violated! ?
I don't care but I ignore where the pictures or texts of the users come from, the main thing is that what I write comes from me and the pictures too. Otherwise there will be links!
Best regards
Frederica
Guest
...every word that is written here (incl. photos) must/should be put on the gold scale first, otherwise "some" will feel immediately attacked. Some of you dish it out and can't take it. But I should have to put up with everything from you or what ?
I would be happy if a community manager could tell me what is allowed in Migipedia regarding the use of other people's images or texts?
If I understand the law correctly, you are allowed to quote other people's pictures and texts in Migipedia as long as the source or the author is named?
Copyright law in Switzerland expressly provides for quotations (Art. 25 CopA). Quoting - for example by bloggers from other weblogs - does not require "permission to reuse" or any other authorization.
Copyright-protected content or works may be freely quoted in Switzerland in order to explain, illustrate or provide references to one's own statements. According to prevailing doctrine, quotations are possible for all categories of works, i.e. according to prevailing doctrine, image quotations can also be used and the right to quote is not limited exclusively to texts.
Legally compliant citation requires that there is a connection between the content and the quotations used. The scope of the quotation is determined by the purpose of the quotation and must always remain subordinate to your own content. Quotations must be recognizable as such and both the authorship and the source must be named. From a copyright point of view, however, it is not necessary to link authorship and source, but such a link is user-friendly for digital content, as it enables quick and easy access to the source.
Art. 25 Citations
1Publishedworks may be cited if the citation serves as an explanation, reference or illustration and the extent of the citation is justified by this purpose.
2The quotation as such and the source must be identified. If the authorship is referred to in the source, this must also be stated.
Source:
https://steigerlegal.ch/2013/01/09/urheberrecht-irrtum-zitat-creative-commons/
Author: January 9, 2013 - Attorney Martin Steiger
Guest
...how bitter, frustrated and dissatisfied are you with yourselves and your lives that you only pick on me all the time, the best thing is if everything is banned here, except the only positive ratings. No more photos are allowed here, no more negative reviews and criticizing is also a criminal offense. I think it's good that a certain radical user is no longer here, but what's going on here now shows what's going on. It has become a hypocritical tragedy, it's a pity that an "actually" good thing has been so messed up.
Wipe at your door, that's enough and I find double standards disgusting :(
if I'm deleted, I don't give a damn, I just find certain things to make me vomit
Guest
schneebaer47, can you prove that you were personally attacked here?
Otherwise, with all due respect, I would ask myself whether my reaction is proportionate.
I can't help but get the impression that it's not the case with you.
And if you don't care about others and you find it so awful here - why do you keep registering here?
